g wrote:
> viewing "source", "header" can be read, but not able to read "body"
> because of 'base64'.
For what it’s worth, you can read base64 encoded text by piping it to
openssl enc -d -base64
James
--
E-mail: james@ | You can accept the existence of rain without denying the
aprilcottage
On 21 January 2012 14:10, Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 13:07 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>> Base64 expands (necessarily since it tries to represent full octets
>> with a subset), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#MIME there isn't
>> much of a rationale for using it in email text (though encod
On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 13:07 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> Base64 expands (necessarily since it tries to represent full octets
> with a subset), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#MIME there isn't
> much of a rationale for using it in email text (though encoding is
> required for binary attachments),
g:
>}> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9)
> dose Evolution convert 'base64' to 'text' during view source?
I wouldn't think any mailer would do so. That wouldn't be viewing the
source, or "raw message," under those circumstances. The normal mail
viewer would, it's job is to show you
On 20 January 2012 19:48, g wrote:
>
> On 01/20/2012 10:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> <>
>
>> Don't know why you conclude that, spam links can have a short lifetime
>> as they get shut down.
> -=-
>
> i must be smoking something stronger than you. B=D
>
> i do not recall, nor see where i made such st
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> be careful with rewrite mailbody
> this will break all sorts of signed mails
Though that problem exists, anyway, even if you do nothing. Because
mail comes to you through more than one server, any of which may
transform an email in transit
On 01/20/2012 07:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 20.01.2012 20:47, schrieb g:
>> On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> <>
>>
>>> be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
>>> signed mails
>> -=-
>>
>> and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification
Am 20.01.2012 20:47, schrieb g:
>
> On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> <>
>
>> be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
>> signed mails
> -=-
>
> and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification banner
and what does this change?
if something BE
On 01/20/2012 10:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
<>
> Don't know why you conclude that, spam links can have a short lifetime
> as they get shut down.
-=-
i must be smoking something stronger than you. B=D
i do not recall, nor see where i made such statement, or imply.
> FWIW I do agree base64 is an
On 01/20/2012 03:18 PM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> you replied to was not received as base64 encoded, here.
>
>
> g:
>> that is because it has enigmail sig. note "source" of this post.
>
> My point was that the spam that you were complaining about as an example
> of why you don't like base64 was *not
On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
<>
> be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
> signed mails
-=-
and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification banner.
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
*please reply "plain text" only. "html text" are deleted*
Am 20.01.2012 16:18, schrieb Tim:
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mailserver.lan.example.com
>
> If I can get the message /as text/, then so you can you, one way or
> another. And your problem (I think it was you that asked about
> converting mail, last week), about using tools t
Tim:
>> you replied to was not received as base64 encoded, here.
g:
> that is because it has enigmail sig. note "source" of this post.
My point was that the spam that you were complaining about as an example
of why you don't like base64 was *not* base64 encoded (the original spam
mail, not your
On 19 January 2012 22:09, g wrote:
>
> On 01/19/2012 12:56 PM, Tim wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
>> but the (obvious) spam (simply by looking at the list of recipients)
> this is true. because it was sent to a 'tsl' also.
> viewing "source", "header" can be read, but not
On 01/19/2012 12:56 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
>> NISM ??
>
> I have no idea what that abbreviation refers to,
-=-
NISM = "Need I Say More"
> but the (obvious) spam (simply by looking at the list of recipients)
-=-
this is true. because it was sent to a 'tsl'
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
> NISM ??
I have no idea what that abbreviation refers to, but the (obvious) spam
(simply by looking at the list of recipients) you replied to was not
received as base64 encoded, here.
Nor should it really be a problem. Only the most ancient or
dysfunc
On 01/18/2012 11:32 PM, Hesty P wrote:
> http://dirtydeez.com/images/thumbs/12betui.htm
-=-
NISM ??
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
*please reply "text/plain" only. "text/html" deleted*
*install Linux* /to/ _learn linux_
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
users mail
17 matches
Mail list logo
